Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: ... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better. IMHO for a library as venerable and widely-used as Numpy, a deprecation cycle is almost always better ... consider this a lesson learned. For reference: Mailing list discussion:

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy 1.11.0rc2 released.

Hi All, Numpy 1.11.0rc2 has been released. There have been a few reversions and fixes since 1.11.0rc1, but by and large things have been pretty stable and unless something terrible happens, I will make the final next weekend. Source files and documentation can be found on Sourceforge

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Hi Travis, >> >> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury wrote: > On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> ... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better. >> > > IMHO for a library as venerable and widely-used as Numpy, a > deprecation cycle is almost always better ... conside

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

Hi, Here is another example. To write pix2ang (and similar functions) to a ufunc, one may want to have implicit scalar broadcast on `nested` and `nsides` arguments. The function is described here: http://healpy.readthedocs.org/en/latest/generated/healpy.pixelfunc.pix2ang.html#healpy.pixelfunc.p

[Numpy-discussion] new API: nancumsum and nancumprod

Hi all, We have a pull request to add np.nancumsum and np.nancumprod: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/7421 Seems pretty straightforward and uncontroversial to me, but our policy is to run new API by the mailing list, so speak up if you have some objection, or take a look at the PR if you

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Hi Travis, >> >> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: >> > >> > Hi everyone, >> > >> > Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized >> u

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:07 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >>> Hi Travis, >>> >>> On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: >>> > >>> > Hi everyone, >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:04 PM, Feng Yu wrote: > Hi, > > ang2pix is used in astronomy to pixelize coordinate in forms of > (theta, phi). healpy is a binding of healpix > (http://healpix.sourceforge.net/, introduction there too), plus a lot > of more extra features or bloat (and I am not particula

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

Hi, ang2pix is used in astronomy to pixelize coordinate in forms of (theta, phi). healpy is a binding of healpix (http://healpix.sourceforge.net/, introduction there too), plus a lot of more extra features or bloat (and I am not particular fond of this aspect of healpy). It gets the work done. Yo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On 03/16/2016 10:32 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury mailto:water...@pangalactic.us>> wrote: On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: ... Sounds like a real deprecation cycle would have been better. IMHO for a library as venerabl

[Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

Hi everyone, Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized ufunc argument checking no now longer allows scalars to be interpreted as 1-d arrays in the core-dimensions? Is there a way to specify in the core-signature that scalars should be allowed and interpreted in those case

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:55 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi Travis, > > On Mar 16, 2016 9:52 AM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > Can you help me understand why the stricter changes to generalized ufunc > argument checking no now longer allows scalars to be interpreted as

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Steve Waterbury wrote: > On 03/16/2016 10:32 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Steve Waterbury >> mailto:water...@pangalactic.us>> wrote: >> >> On 03/16/2016 06:28 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> ... Sounds like a real de

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > That's a great idea! > > Adding multiple-dispatch capability for this case could also solve a lot > of issues that right now prevent generalized ufuncs from being the > mechanism of implementation of *all* NumPy functions. > > -Travis > F

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Changes to generalized ufunc core dimension checking

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Mar 17, 2016 1:22 AM, "Feng Yu" wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is another example. >> >> To write pix2ang (and similar functions) to a ufunc, one may want to have >> implicit scalar broadcast on `nested` and `nsides` arguments. >> >> The